Human races are not a matter of belief. Look at the people around you, look at different cultures and their trends across centuries. You're one of those people who could take a lesson from this article.
By the way, when I was younger and there was very little immigration here in Italy, I looked around me and saw people - whole families - with blond hair, with dark hair, with red hair. I saw people (and families) with blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes. I saw very tall people, very short people, very smart people, pretty dumb people. And there were people with very pale skin, medium skin, and pretty dark skin. So, how many "races" where there already?
I'm under the impression that, when you talk about race, you really mean something like breed[1]. But there isn't selective breeding in humans - at least, that I'm aware of.
So, the question is not moot. If you have to define "race" scientifically, how do you go about it?
I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not.
There is, however, a systemic bias tied to things like skin color, or accent, and not at all associated with the ability of such applicants to do well in the institution. As a result of this systemic bias, applicants that would, were they white, be admitted in a heartbeat, are judged significantly more critically, so we attempt to correct this problem by giving them more 'points' or whatever in the admission process for possessing physical attributes that incorrectly hold them back.
I'm not sure what other system you would propose in such an environment?
Oh. Then please provide the list asked for, and while you're at it, list the genes and loci you use to classify members of a "race".
I mean, if human "races" are not a matter of belief but are a matter of science, that should be really easy for you and the parent commenter.
Right?
Ask any university humanities department whether their African-American Studies program isn't just as bogus as a Unicorn Studies program since neither group actually exists, and see what they say.
Ask the US federal government what categories they include on the census under "race".
Ask a liberal supporter of minority business set-aside programs for a list of who these so-called "minorities" are. Are they proposing setting aside contracts for businesses run by left-handed people, or do they have a different set of categories in mind? Ask them for their list of who should be given preference over whom.
To top it off, your first example is incredible. Universities usually lump all Asians into one category though most people would consider an Indian and a Japanese person to be of different race. If that is your list, you have done your argument a grievous injury.
There are different races in the sense that there are different colors on the visible electromagnetic spectrum. There is no "correct" categorization on the spectrum itself, but you can observe clearly different clusters in many situations. Take all the red, green, and blue elements from several video monitors and graph their frequencies and despite that fact that there is a lot of diversity, there won't be a uniform distribution. Three clusters will be easily visible, and you can call them clusters red, green, and blue. In the application, unlike the theoretical spectrum, these categories do exist.
History has clustered human beings, too. Nobody here really denies that humans have descended in a complex tree with lots of crossovers. There is no right way to categorize all leaves of the tree itself into sharp "races". Even so, historical accident has resulted in a lot of clustering of genetic affinity where members of a cluster share lots of relatively recent common ancestors but have mostly very distant common ancestors with members of other clusters. The fact that there are individuals of all sorts on the human tree doesn't mean that there is no clustering.
So Han Chinese, Central American Indians, Northern Europeans, and West Africans diverge long ago and don't intermix genetically for a thousand generations, then history brings them together recently in the Americas where they begin to interbreed.
Nothing wrong with that (at least IMO). Eventually this interbreeding may reduce the clustering to mere random clustering, but today there are still strong, clear clusters of genetic affinity. You can call the clusters races or call them foo, but they aren't just figments of the imagination. The admissions department at Stanford has no difficulty in most cases distinguishing an Indian from a Japanese by genetic affinity with other members of these groups. Whether they then make that two different racial preference categories or assign them to the same "Asian" group is just identity politics.
Instead I'll go for the route of scientific analogy. If dogs have races, why wouldn't humans? After all, humans are not biologically above or separate from animals. Why would basic evolution stop applying with humans?
Mind you, the existence of races doesn't have to imply inferiority or superiority between them. People seem to be afraid that would happen, so they throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying the whole concept of race altogether. Much like the article says.
Also, since the invention of boats and planes, humans have been interbreeding like crazy, so it's pretty much ceasing to matter.
Of all the injustices in the world, extra scholarships for racial minorities hardly seems like a high priority, though. I'd rather cut through the Gordian Knot with free education for all (not as an entitlement, but rather as an investment).
We're about 1.5 generations away from race not mattering at all; young people simply don't care. Like so many vestiges of the old world, race-based entitlements will eventually disappear.